# C_2007297EN.01003201.xml

| 8.12.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.12.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/32

---

Action brought on 26 October 2007 — French Republic v Council of the European Union

(Case C-479/07)

(2007/C 297/52)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: French Republic (represented by: E. Belliard, G. De Bergues and A.-L. During, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. de Gregorio Merino and M-M Joséphidès, Agents)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Council Regulation (EC) No 809/2007 of 28 June 2007 amending Regulations (EC) No 894/97, (EC) No 812/2004 and (EC) No 2187/2005 as concerns drift nets (1); |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Council Regulation (EC) No 809/2007 of 28 June 2007 amending Regulations (EC) No 894/97, (EC) No 812/2004 and (EC) No 2187/2005 as concerns drift nets (1);

1

| — | Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its action, lodged at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 10 October 2007 (received by fax on 5 October 2007) and referred to the Court of Justice under Article 51 and the second paragraph of Article 54 of the Statute of the Court of Justice by order of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 26 October 2007, the applicant disputes the definition of ‘drift net’ adopted by the Council in Regulation No 809/2007 to the extent that it includes stabilised nets such as the ‘thonaille’ (a tuna gillnet) among such drift nets. In extending to those nets the prohibition of drift nets laid down by Regulations 894/2007, 812/2004 and 2187/2005, the present regulation infringes both the obligation to provide reasons and the principles of proportionality and non-discrimination.

By its first plea, the applicant claims that the Council failed in its obligation to provide reasons by not mentioning in the contested regulation, first, the reasons which led it to include stabilised nets among drift nets and therefore to extend the substantive scope of the restrictions applicable to that type of nets and, second, the scientific and technical opinions it relied upon when adopting that measure.

By its second plea, the applicant complains of the manifestly inappropriate character of the prohibition of stabilised nets such as the thonaille, both with regard to the objective pursued by the regulations cited above which aim to limit the uncontrolled expansion of fishing activities carried out with drift gillnets and with regard to the objective of limiting by-catches. Carried out on a very small scale by a limited number of small vessels, fishing by thonaille is in fact a traditional activity practised on a small stretch of Mediterranean coastline which does not present any risk of uncontrolled expansion. The thonaille has moreover been subject to technical adjustments in order to reduce as far as possible the risk of by-catches and, in particular, by-catches of protected species.

By its third plea, the applicant alleges finally an infringement of the principle of non-discrimination since the contested regulation treats the thonaille in the same way as drift gillnets whereas the two categories are different both with regard to the particular technical characteristics of the thonaille and with regard to the small number of vessels concerned and the limited scale of the fishing activities.

---

(1)  OJ 2007 L 182, p. 1.

1

---